1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the area of 23 square meters in East-gu, East-gu, E, each point is indicated in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 19, 2019, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the E-23 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Part of a cement block structure string roof housing owned by the Defendant is located within 19.8 square meters in part 19.8 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “part 1 in ship”) connected each point of the instant land, among the instant land, which is owned by the Defendant, in sequence of 1,2,3,4,5,6,000 square meters, and the remainder of the instant land is owned by the Defendant as the end of the instant single-story housing owned by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 6, Eul's 1, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the defendant owned a building built over the boundary of the land of this case, thereby hindering the plaintiff's exercise of ownership over the land of this case. Thus, barring special circumstances, the plaintiff is obligated to remove the house of cement block structure, cement block structure, straw roof among the land of this case and deliver the land of this case.

(B) The plaintiff's exercise of rights is trying to cause pain and damage to the defendant, and it cannot be viewed as abuse of rights because it is difficult to view the plaintiff's exercise of rights as an abuse of rights where there is no benefit to the person who exercises the rights.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the above-story housing owned by the defendant was approved in 1975 and the legal superficies was established in 1996, and therefore, it cannot comply with the plaintiff's claim. Thus, the legal superficies under customary law, which decided the defendant's claim, belongs to the same owner's ownership, but the land or the building belongs to the same owner's ownership, but its owner becomes different for reasons other than sale and purchase of the building or the land (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu2603, Oct. 30, 1990). The land of this case and the above-story housing owned by the defendant are the same.